Survey Results HRS4R - cvut.cz
Transcript of Survey Results HRS4R - cvut.cz
HR AWARD SURVEY – evaluation Analysis of the questionnaire survey results related to CTU in Prague regulations and activities in compliance with the principles of The European
Charter for Researchers and the Code of Conduct for the Recruitment of Researchers.
I. IN GENERAL
CTU in Prague employs 4 897 employees. The survey was sent out to the employees in October 2018 and simultaneously the collection of data
has been in operation.
1) Number of people who participated in the survey (table 1, figure1)
Number of employees at CTU is 4 897. The survey was filled out by 346 employees, which accounts for 7 % of total.
Table 1 Figure 1
Participated 346
Not-participated 4 551
∑ 4 897
7%
93%
Participated Not-participated
2) Gender distribution (table 2, figure 2)
From those who participated in the survey, 270 (78 %) were men, 52 (15 %) were women and 24 (7 %) did not specify. The percentage of women
in the sample almost corresponds to the overall percentage of women among CTU employees, which currently is 18 %.
Table 2 Figure 2
Male 270
Female 52
Unspecified 24
∑ 346
78%
15%
7%
Male Female Unspecified
3) Distribution by faculties and institutes of CTU (table 3, figure 3)
Six faculties and four institutes of CTU have participated in the survey. The number of participants and the ratios (in percent) are depicted in the
following table 3 and figure 3. It is important to note that the faculties and institutes are of different sizes. The ratios are presented in relation to
the total amount of participants that filled out the survey.
Table 3 Figure 3
CIIRC 15
FA 38
FTS 8
FEE 143
FNSPE 46
FME 1
FCE 26
KI 19
UCEEB 12
IEAP 37
∑ 345
4) Distribution by position (table 4.1, figure 4.1)
Employees of different positions have participated in the survey. The number of participants and the ratios (in percent) are depicted in the
following table 4.1 and figure 4.1. It is important to note that there have been many entries for positions of the same subset (e.g. „Junior
researcher (Postdoc, Assistant professor)“; „Junior researcher (Postdoc, Assistant professor), Other“; „Junior researcher (Postdoc, Assistant
professor), Technical staff“ etc.). These positions of similar stature have been grouped together as seen in table 4.1 and figure 4.1.
Table 4.1 Graf 4.1
Junior Researcher 150
Senior Researcher 99
Management 19
Technical staff 14
Other 64
∑ 346
II. GAP ANALYSIS
The following overview is based on individual points of the Gap Analysis, which is in terms with The European Charter for Researchers and The
Code fo Conduct for the Recruitment of Researchers – General Principles and Requirements applicable to Researchers, General Principles and
Requirements applicable to Employers and Funders, The Code of Conduct for the Recruitment of Researchers.
1. Research freedom (table 4, figure 4)
Researchers should focus their research for the good of mankind and for expanding the frontiers of scientific knowledge, while enjoying the
freedom of thought and expression, and the freedom to identify methods by which problems are solved, according to recognised ethical principles
and practices. Researchers should, however, recognise the limitations to this freedom that could arise as a result of particular research
circumstances (including supervision/guidance/management) or operational constraints, e.g. for budgetary or infrastructural reasons or,
especially in the industrial sector, for reasons of intellectual property protection. Such limitations should not, however, contravene recognised
ethical principles and practices, to which researchers have to adhere.
Research freedom is evaluated positively. The majority of the answers were marked „fully implemented“, i.e. 60 %. The option „rather
implemented“ was indicated by 24 %, „moderate“ by 8 %, „rahter missing“ by 2 %, „completely missing“ by 2 % and „unable to say“ by 4 %.
Table 4 Figure 4
1 - fully implemented 207
2 - substantially implemented 85
3 – partially implemented 28
4 – insufficiently implemented 6
5 - completely missing 6
6 - unable to say 14
∑ 346
2. Ethical principles (table 5, figure 5)
Researchers should adhere to the recognised ethical practices and fundamental ethical principles appropriate to their discipline(s) as well as to
ethical standards as documented in the different national, sectoral or institutional Codes of Ethics.
The majority of the answers were marked „fully implemented“, i.e. 55 %. The option „rather implemented“ was evaluated by 26 %, „moderate“
by 10 %, „rather missing“ by 2 %, „completely missing“ by 2 % and „unable to say“ 5 %.
Table 5 Figure 5
1 - fully implemented 191
2 - substantially implemented 89
3 – partially implemented 34
4 – insufficiently implemented 8
5 - completely missing 8
6 - unable to say 16
∑ 346
3. Professional responsibility (table 6, figure 6)
Researchers should make every effort to ensure that their research is relevant to society and does not duplicate research previously carried out
elsewhere.They must avoid plagiarism of any kind and abide by the principle of intellectual property and joint data ownership in the case of
research carried out in collaboration with a supervisor(s) and/or other researchers. The need to validate new observations by showing that
experiments are reproducible should not be interpreted as plagiarism, provided that the data to be confirmed are explicitly quoted. Researchers
should ensure, if any aspect of their work is delegated, that the person to whom it is delegated has the competence to carry it out.
The majority of the answers were marked „fully implemented“, i.e. 53 % of all answers. Next options „rather implemented“ were evaluated by
25 %, „moderate“ by 13 %, „rather missing“ by 4 %, „completely missing“ by 2 % and „unable to say“ by 3 %.
Table 6 Figure 6
1 - fully implemented 182
2 - substantially implemented 88
3 – partially implemented 44
4 – insufficiently implemented 14
5 - completely missing 7
6 - unable to say 11
∑ 346
4. Professional attitude (table 7, figure 7)
Researchers should be familiar with the strategic goals governing their research environment and funding mechanisms, and should seek all
necessary approvals before starting their research or accessing the resources provided. They should inform their employers, funders or supervisor
when their research project is delayed, redefined or completed, or give notice if it is to be terminated earlier or suspended for whatever reason.
The majority of the answers were marked „fully implemented“, i.e. 40 % of all answers. The option „rather implemented“ was evaluated by
33 %, „moderate“ by 17 %, „rather missing“ by 4 %, „completely missing“ by 2 % and „unable to say“ by 4 %.
Table 7 Figure 7
1 - fully implemented 140
2 - substantially implemented 113
3 – partially implemented 59
4 – insufficiently implemented 12
5 - completely missing 7
6 - unable to say 15
∑ 346
5. Contractual and legal obligations (table 8, figure 8)
Researchers at all levels must be familiar with the national, sectoral or institutional regulations governing training and/or working conditions.
This includes Intellectual Property Rights regulations, and the requirements and conditions of any sponsor or funders, independently of the nature
of their contract. Researchers should adhere to such regulations by delivering the required results (e.g. thesis, publications, patents, reports, new
products development, etc) as set out in the terms and conditions of the contract or equivalent document.
The majority of the answers were marked „fully implemented“, i.e. 34 % of all answers. Next options „rather implemented“ were evaluated by
32 %, „moderate“ by 19 %, „rather missing“ by 6 %, „completely missing“ by 3 % and „unable to say“ by 6 %.
Table 8 Figure 8
1 - fully implemented 119
2 - substantially implemented 110
3 – partially implemented 65
4 – insufficiently implemented 20
5 - completely missing 10
6 - unable to say 22
∑ 346
6. Accountability (table 9, figure 9)
Researchers need to be aware that they are accountable towards their employers, funders or other related public or private bodies as well as, on
more ethical grounds, towards society as a whole. In particular, researchers funded by public funds are also accountable for the efficient use of
taxpayer’s money. Consequently, they should adhere to the principles of sound, transparent and efficient financial management and cooperate
with any authorised audits of their research, whether undertaken by their employers/funders or by ethics committees. Methods of collection and
analysis, the outputs and, where applicable, details of the data should be open to internal and external scrutiny, whenever necessary and as
requested by the appropriate authorities.
The majority of the answers were marked „fully implemented“, i.e. 47 % of all answers. The option „rather implemented“ was evaluated by
27 %, „moderate“ by 13 %, „rather missing“ by 6 %, „completely missing“ by 1 % and „unable to say“ by 6 %.
Table 9 Figure 9
1 - fully implemented 163
2 - substantially implemented 95
3 – partially implemented 44
4 – insufficiently implemented 19
5 - completely missing 5
6 - unable to say 20
∑ 346
7. Good practice in research (table 10, figure 10)
Researchers should at all times adopt safe working practices, in line with national legislation, including taking the necessary precautions for health
and safety and for recovery from information technology disasters, e.g. by preparing proper backup strategies. They should also be familiar with
the current national legal requirements regarding data protection and confidentiality protection requirements, and undertake the necessary steps
to fulfill them at all times.
The majority of the answers were marked „fully implemented“, i.e. 46 % of all answers. The option „rather implemented“ was evaluated by
33 %, „moderate“ by 12%, „rather missing“ by 4 %, „completely missing“ by 1 % and „unable to say“ by 4 %.
Table 10 Figure 10
1 - fully implemented 159
2 - substantially implemented 113
3 – partially implemented 43
4 – insufficiently implemented 14
5 - completely missing 5
6 - unable to say 12
∑ 346
8. Dissemination, exploitation of results (table 11, figure 11)
All researchers should ensure, in compliance with their contractual arrangements, that the results of their research are disseminated and
exploited, e.g. communicated, transferred into other research settings or, if appropriate, commercialised. Senior researchers, in particular, are
expected to take a lead in ensuring that research is fruitful and that results are either exploited commercially or made accessible to the public (or
both) whenever the opportunity arises.
The majority of the answers were marked „fully implemented“, i.e. 40 % of all answers. Next options „rather implemented“ were evaluated by
33 %, „moderate“ by 14 %, „rather missing“ by 7 %, „completely missing“ by 1 % and „unable to say“ by 5 %.
Table 11 Figure 11
1 - fully implemented 139
2 - substantially implemented 113
3 – partially implemented 47
4 – insufficiently implemented 25
5 - completely missing 4
6 - unable to say 18
∑ 346
9. Public engagement (table 12, figure 12)
Researchers should ensure that their research activities are made known to society at large in such a way that they can be understood by non-
specialists, thereby improving the public’s understanding of science. Direct engagement with the public will help researchers to better understand
public interest in priorities for science and technology and also the public’s concerns.
The majority of the answers were marked „rather implemented“, i.e. 34 % of all answers. The option „fully implemented“ was evaluated by
31 %, „moderate“ by 21%, „rather missing“ by 9 %, „completely missing“ by 1 % and „unable to say“ by 4 %.
Table 12 Figure 12
1 - fully implemented 109
2 - substantially implemented 118
3 – partially implemented 73
4 – insufficiently implemented 30
5 - completely missing 2
6 - unable to say 14
∑ 346
10. Non discrimination (table 13, figure 13)
Employers and/or funders of researchers will not discriminate against researchers in any way on the basis of gender, age, ethnic, national or social
origin, religion or belief, sexual orientation, language, disability, political opinion, social or economic condition.
The majority of the answers were marked „fully implemented“, i.e. 74 % of all answers. Next options „rather implemented“ were evaluated by
15 %, „moderate“ by 5 %, „rather missing“ by 1 %, „completely missing“ by 3 % and „unable to say“ by 2 %. This is the best positive response.
Table 13 Figure 13
1 - fully implemented 257
2 - substantially implemented 52
3 – partially implemented 16
4 – insufficiently implemented 4
5 - completely missing 11
6 - unable to say 6
∑ 346
11. Evaluation/appraisal systems (table 14, figure 14)
Employers and/or funders should introduce for all researchers, including senior researchers, evaluation/appraisal systems for assessing their
professional performance on a regular basis and in a transparent manner by an independent (and, in the case of senior researchers, preferably
international) committee. Such evaluation and appraisal procedures should take due account of their overall research creativity and research
results, e.g. publications, patents, management of research, teaching/lecturing, supervision, mentoring, national or international collaboration,
administrative duties, public awareness activities and mobility, and should be taken into consideration in the context of career progression.
The majority of the answers were marked „fully implemented“, i.e. 32 % of all answers. The option „rather implemented“ was evaluated by
30 %, „moderate“ by 17%, „rather missing“ by 9 %, „completely missing“ by 5 % and „unable to say“ by 7 %.
Table 14 Figure 14
1 - fully implemented 110
2 - substantially implemented 105
3 – partially implemented 59
4 – insufficiently implemented 30
5 - completely missing 16
6 - unable to say 26
∑ 346
12. Recruitment (table 15, figure 15)
Employers and/or funders should ensure that the entry and admission standards for researchers, particularly at the beginning at their careers,
are clearly specified and should also facilitate access for disadvantaged groups or for researchers returning to a research career, including
teachers(of any level) returning to a research career. Employers and/or funders of researchers should adhere to the principles set out in the Code
of Conduct for the Recruitment of Researchers when appointing or recruiting researchers.
The majority of the answers were marked „fully implemented“, i.e. 31 % of all answers. The option „rather implemented“ was evaluated by
27 %, „moderate“ by 15%, „rather missing“ by 7 %, „completely missing“ by 2 % and „unable to say“ by 18 %.
Tab. č. 15 Graf č. 15
1 - fully implemented 108
2 - substantially implemented 93
3 – partially implemented 52
4 – insufficiently implemented 25
5 - completely missing 8
6 - unable to say 60
∑ 346
13. Recruitment (Code) (table 16, figure 16)
Employers and/or funders should establish recruitment procedures whichare open, efficient, transparent, supportive and internationally
comparable, as well as tailored to the type of positions advertised. Advertisements should give a broad description of knowledge and competencies
required, and should not be so specialised as to discourage suitable applicants. Employers should include a description of the working conditions
and entitlements, including career development prospects. Moreover, the time allowed between the advertisement of the vacancy or the call for
applications and the deadline for reply should be realistic.
The majority of the answers were marked „fully implemented“, i.e. 32 % of all answers. Next options „rather implemented“ were evaluated by
27 %, „moderate“ by 12 %, „rather missing“ by 8 %, „completely missing“ by 3 % and „unable to say“ by 18 %.
Table 16 Figure 16
1 - fully implemented 109
2 - substantially implemented 95
3 – partially implemented 42
4 – insufficiently implemented 27
5 - completely missing 12
6 - unable to say 61
∑ 346
14. Selection (Code) (table 17, figure 17)
Selection committees should bring together diverse expertise and competences and should have an adequate gender balance and, where
appropriate and feasible, include members from different sectors (public and private) and disciplines, including from other countries and with
relevant experience to assess the candidate. Whenever possible, a wide range of selection practices should be used, such as external expert
assessment and face-to-face interviews. Members of selection panels should be adequately trained.
The majority of the answers were marked „rather implemented“, i.e. 29 % of all answers. The option „fully implemented“ was evaluated by
27 %, „moderate“ by 16 %, „rather missing“ by 5 %, „completely missing“ by 4 % and „unable to say“ by 19 %.
Table 17 Figure 17
1 - fully implemented 94
2 - substantially implemented 100
3 – partially implemented 54
4 – insufficiently implemented 17
5 - completely missing 14
6 - unable to say 67
∑ 346
15. Transparency (Code) (table 18, figure 18)
Candidates should be informed, prior to the selection, about the recruitment process and the selection criteria, the number of available positions
and the career development prospects. They should also be informed after the selection process about the strengths and weaknesses of their
applications.
The majority of the answers were marked „fully implemented“, i.e. 32 % of all answers. Next options „rather implemented“ were evaluated by
20 %, „moderate“ by 18 %, „rather missing“ by 7 %, „completely missing“ by 3 % and „unable to say“ by 20 %.
Table 18 Figure 18
1 - fully implemented 111
2 - substantially implemented 68
3 – partially implemented 62
4 – insufficiently implemented 25
5 - completely missing 10
6 - unable to say 70
∑ 346
16. Judging merit (Code) (table 19, figure 19)
The selection process should take into consideration the whole range of experience of the candidates. While focusing on their overall potential as
researchers, their creativity and level of independence should also be considered. This means that merit should be judged qualitatively as well as
quantitatively, focusing on outstanding results within a diversified career path and not only on the number of publications. Consequently, the
importance of bibliometric indices should be properly balanced within a wider range of evaluation criteria, such as teaching, supervision,
teamwork, knowledge transfer, management of research and innovation and public awareness activities. For candidates from an industrial
background, particular attention should be paid to any contributions to patents, development or inventions.
The majority of the answers were marked „fully implemented“, i.e. 31 % of all answers. The option „rather implemented“ was evaluated by
25 %, „moderate“ by 13%, „rather missing“ by 5 %, „completely missing“ by 2 % and „unable to say“ by 24 %.
Table 19 Figure 19
1 - fully implemented 109
2 - substantially implemented 86
3 – partially implemented 45
4 – insufficiently implemented 16
5 - completely missing 7
6 - unable to say 83
∑ 346
17. Varations in the chronological order of CVc (Code) (table 20, figure 20)
Career breaks or variations in the chronological order of CVs should not be penalised, but regarded as an evolution of a career, and
consequently, as a potentially valuable contribution to the professional development of researchers towards a multidimensional career track.
Candidates should therefore be allowed to submit evidence-based CVs, reflecting a representative array of achievements and qualifications
appropriate to the post for which application is being made.
The majority of the answers were marked „fully implemented“, i.e. 34 % of all answers. The option „rather implemented“ was evaluated by
20 %, „moderate“ by 7 %, „rather missing“ by 3 %, „completely missing“ by 2 % and „unable to say“ by 34 %.
Table 20 Figure 20
1 - fully implemented 119
2 - substantially implemented 69
3 – partially implemented 26
4 – insufficiently implemented 9
5 - completely missing 7
6 - unable to say 116
∑ 346
18. Recognition of mobility experience (Code) (table 21, figure 21)
Any mobility experience, e.g. a stay in another country/region or in another research setting (public or private) or a change from one discipline or
sector to another, whether as part of the initial research training or at a later stage of the research career, or virtual mobility experience, should
be considered as a valuable contribution to the professional development of a researcher.
The majority of the answers were marked „fully implemented“, i.e. 52 % of all answers. Next options „rather implemented“ were evaluated by
23 %, „moderate“ by 9 %, „rather missing“ by 5 %, „completely missing“ by 2 % and „unable to say“ by 9 %.
Table 21 Figure 21
1 - fully implemented 179
2 - substantially implemented 80
3 – partially implemented 33
4 – insufficiently implemented 17
5 - completely missing 6
6 - unable to say 31
∑ 346
19. Recognition of qualifications (Code) (table 22, figure 22)
Employers and/or funders should provide for appropriate assessment and evaluation of the academic and professional qualifications, including
non-formal qualifications, of all researchers, in particular within the context of international and professional mobility. They should inform
themselves and gain a full understanding of rules, procedures and standards governing the recognition of such qualifications and, consequently,
explore existing national law, conventions and specific rules on the recognition of these qualifications through all available channels.
The majority of the answers were marked „fully implemented“, i.e. 37 % of all answers. The option „rather implemented“ was evaluated by
26 %, „moderate“ by 12 %, „rather missing“ by 4 %, „completely missing“ by 2 % and „unable to say“ by 19 %.
Table 22 Figure 22
1 - fully implemented 128
2 - substantially implemented 90
3 – partially implemented 41
4 – insufficiently implemented 14
5 - completely missing 6
6 - unable to say 67
∑ 346
20. Seniority (Code) (table 23, figure 23)
The levels of qualifications required should be in line with the needs of the position and not be set as a barrier to entry. Recognition and evaluation
of qualifications should focus on judging the achievements of the person rather than his/her circumstances or the reputation of the institution
where the qualifications were gained. As professional qualifications may be gained at an early stage of a long career, the pattern of lifelong
professional development should also be recognised.
The majority of the answers were marked „fully implemented“, i.e. 33 % of all answers. Next options „rather implemented“ were evaluated by
32 %, „moderate“ by 10 %, „rather missing“ by 3 %, „completely missing“ by 1 % and „unable to say“ by 21 %.
Table 23 Figure 23
1 - fully implemented 115
2 - substantially implemented 111
3 – partially implemented 34
4 – insufficiently implemented 10
5 - completely missing 5
6 - unable to say 71
∑ 346
21. Postdoctoral appointments (Code) (table 24, figure 24)
Clear rules and explicit guidelines for the recruitment and appointment of postdoctoral researchers, including the maximum duration and the
objectives of such appointments, should be established by the institutions appointing postdoctoral researchers. Such guidelines should take into
account time spent in prior postdoctoral appointments at other institutions and take into consideration that the postdoctoral status should be
transitional, with the primary purpose of providing additional professional development opportunities for a research career in the context of long
term career prospects.
The majority of the answers were marked „unable to say“, i.t. 30 %. Next options, i.e. „fully implemented“ and „rather implemented“ are
evaluated by 24% both. The options „moderate“ were evaluated by 12 %, „rather missing“ by 5 % and „completely missing“ by 5 %.
Table 24 Figure 24
1 - fully implemented 84
2 - substantially implemented 83
3 – partially implemented 42
4 – insufficiently implemented 18
5 - completely missing 17
6 - unable to say 102
∑ 346
22. Recognition of the profession (table 25, figure 25)
All researchers engaged in a research career should be recognised as professionals and be treated accordingly. This should commence at the
beginning of their careers, namely at postgraduate level, and should include all levels, regardless of their classification at national level
(e.g.employee, postgraduate student, doctoral candidate, postdoctoral fellow, civil servants).
The majority of the answers were marked „fully implemented“, i.e. 43 % of all answers. Next options „rather implemented“ were evaluated by
27 %, „moderate“ by 12 %, „rather missing“ by 5 %, „completely missing“ by 2 % and „unable to say“ by 11 %.
Table 25 Figure 25
1 - fully implemented 148
2 - substantially implemented 94
3 – partially implemented 43
4 – insufficiently implemented 18
5 - completely missing 6
6 - unable to say 37
∑ 346
23. Research environment (table 26, figure 26)
Employers and/or funders of researchers should ensure that the most stimulating research or research training environment is created which
offers appropriate equipment, facilities and opportunities, including for remote collaboration over research networks, and that the national or
sectoral regulations concerning health and safety in research are observed. Funders should ensure that adequate resources are provided in support
of the agreed work programme.
The majority of the answers were marked „fully implemented“, i.e. 42 % of all answers. The option „rather implemented“ was evaluated by
31 %, „moderate“ by 15 %, „rather missing“ by 6 %, „completely missing“ by 2 % and „unable to say“ by 4 %.
Table 26 Figure 26
1 - fully implemented 145
2 - substantially implemented 105
3 – partially implemented 52
4 – insufficiently implemented 21
5 - completely missing 8
6 - unable to say 15
∑ 346
24. Working conditions (table 27, figure 27)
Employers and/or funders should ensure that the working conditions for researchers, including for disabled researchers, provide where
appropriate the flexibility deemed essential for successful research performance in accordance with existing national legislation and with national
or sectoral collective-bargaining agreements. They should aim to provide working conditions which allow both women and men researchers to
combine family and work, children and career. Particular attention should be paid, inter alia, to flexible working hours, part-time working,
teleworking and sabbatical leave, as well as to the necessary financial and administrative provisions governing such arrangements.
The majority of the answers were marked „fully implemented“, i.e. 44 % of all answers. The option „rather implemented“ was evaluated by
33 %, „moderate“ by 14 %, „rather missing“ by 5 %, „completely missing“ by 2 % and „unable to say“ by 2 %.
Table 27 Figure 27
1 - fully implemented 152
2 - substantially implemented 114
3 – partially implemented 48
4 – insufficiently implemented 17
5 - completely missing 7
6 - unable to say 8
∑ 346
25. Stability and permanence of employment (table 28, figure 28)
Employers and/or funders should ensure that the performance of researchers is not undermined by instability of employment contracts, and
should therefore commit themselves as far as possible to improving the stability of employment conditions for researchers, thus implementing
and abiding by the principles and terms laid down in the EU Directive on Fixed-Term Work.
The majority of the answers were marked „fully implemented“, i.e. 40 % of all answers. Next options „rather implemented“ were evaluated by
30 %, „moderate“ by 10 %, „rather missing“ by 8 %, „completely missing“ by 4 % and „unable to say“ by 8 %.
Table 28 Figure 28
1 - fully implemented 140
2 - substantially implemented 104
3 – partially implemented 36
4 – insufficiently implemented 26
5 - completely missing 14
6 - unable to say 26
∑ 346
26. Funding and salaries (table 29, figure 29)
Employers and/or funders of researchers should ensure that researchers enjoy fair and attractive conditions of funding and/or salaries with
adequate and equitable social security provisions (including sickness and parental benefits, pension rights and unemployment benefits) in
accordance with existing national legislation and with national or sectoral collective bargaining agreements. This must include researchers at all
career stages including early-stage researchers, commensurate with their legal status, performance and level of qualifications and/or
responsibilities.
The majority of the answers were marked „rather implemented“, i.e. 32 % of all answers. The option „fully implemented“ was evaluated by
23 %, „moderate“ by 21 %, „rather missing“ by 13 %, „completely missing“ by 6 % and „unable to say“ by 5 %.
Table 29 Figure 29
1 - fully implemented 80
2 - substantially implemented 109
3 – partially implemented 71
4 – insufficiently implemented 46
5 - completely missing 22
6 - unable to say 18
∑ 346
27. Gender balance (table 30, figure 30)
Employers and/or funders should aim for a representative gender balance at all levels of staff, including at supervisory and managerial level. This
should be achieved on the basis of an equal opportunity policy at recruitment and at the subsequent career stages without, however, taking
precedence over quality and competence criteria. To ensure equal treatment, selection and evaluation committees should have an adequate
gender balance.
The majority of the answers were marked „fully implemented“, i.e. 43 % of all answers. Next options „rather implemented“ were evaluated by
24 %, „moderate“ by 12 %, „rather missing“ by 5 %, „completely missing“ by 4 % and „unable to say“ by 12 %.
Table 30 Figure 30
1 - fully implemented 150
2 - substantially implemented 82
3 – partially implemented 42
4 – insufficiently implemented 18
5 - completely missing 13
6 - unable to say 41
∑ 346
28. Career development (table 31, figure 31)
Employers and/or funders of researchers should draw up, preferably within the framework of their human resources management, a specific
career development strategy for researchers at all stages of their career, regardless of their contractual situation, including for researchers on
fixed-term contracts. It should include the availability of mentors involved in providing support and guidance for the personal and professional
development of researchers, thus motivating them and contributing to reducing any insecurity in their professional future. All researchers should
be made familiar with such provisions and arrangements.
The majority of the answers were marked „rather implemented“, i.e. 30 % of all answers. The option „fully implemented“ was evaluated by
28 %, „moderate“ by 21 %, „rather missing“ by 9 %, „completely missing“ by 5 % and „unable to say“ by 7 %.
Table 31 Figure 31
1 - fully implemented 96
2 - substantially implemented 105
3 – partially implemented 72
4 – insufficiently implemented 31
5 - completely missing 17
6 - unable to say 25
∑ 346
29. Value of mobility (table 32, figure 32)
Employers and/or funders must recognise the value of geographical, inter-sectoral, inter- and trans-disciplinary and virtual mobility as well as
mobility between the public and private sector as an important means of enhancing scientific knowledge and professional development at any
stage of a researcher’s career. Consequently, they should build such options into the specific career development strategy and fully value and
acknowledge any mobility experience within their career progression/appraisal system. This also requires that the necessary administrative
instruments be put in place to allow the portability of both grants and social security provisions, in accordance with national legislation.
The majority of the answers were marked „fully implemented“, i.e. 39 % of all answers. Next options „rather implemented“ were evaluated by
28 %, „moderate“ by 18 %, „rather missing“ by 4 %, „completely missing“ by 1 % and „unable to say“ by 10 %.
Table 32 Figure 32
1 - fully implemented 133
2 - substantially implemented 97
3 – partially implemented 61
4 – insufficiently implemented 15
5 - completely missing 4
6 - unable to say 36
∑ 346
30. Access to career advice (table 33, figure 33)
Employers and/or funders should ensure that career advice and job placement assistance, either in the institutions concerned, or through
collaboration with other structures, is offered to researchers at all stages of their careers, regardless of their contractual situation.
The majority of the answers were marked „rather implemented“, i.e. 27 % of all answers. The option „fully implemented“ was evaluated by
22 %, „moderate“ by 19 %, „rather missing“ by 15 %, „completely missing“ by 4 % and „unable to say“ by 13 %.
Table 33 Figure 33
1 - fully implemented 77
2 - substantially implemented 94
3 – partially implemented 66
4 – insufficiently implemented 51
5 - completely missing 15
6 - unable to say 43
∑ 346
31. Intellectual Property Rights (table 34, figure 34)
Employers and/or funders should ensure that researchers at all career stages reap the benefits of the exploitation (if any) of their R&D results
through legal protection and, in particular, through appropriate protection of Intellectual Property Rights, including copyrights. Policies and
practices should specify what rights belong to researchers and/or, where applicable, to their employers or other parties, including external
commercial or industrial organisations, as possibly provided for under specific collaboration agreements or other types of agreement.
The majority of the answers were marked „fully implemented“, i.e. 32 % of all answers. Next options „rather implemented“ were evaluated by
26 %, „moderate“ by 14 %, „rather missing“ by 8 %, „completely missing“ by 4 % and „unable to say“ by 16 %.
Table 34 Figure 34
1 - fully implemented 112
2 - substantially implemented 91
3 – partially implemented 47
4 – insufficiently implemented 26
5 - completely missing 14
6 - unable to say 56
∑ 346
32. Co-authorship (table 35, figure 35)
Co-authorship should be viewed positively by institutions when evaluating staff, as evidence of a constructive approach to the conduct of research.
Employers and/or funders should therefore develop strategies, practices and procedures to provide researchers, including those at the beginning
of their research careers, with the necessary framework conditions so that they can enjoy the right to be recognised and listed and/or quoted, in
the context of their actual contributions, as co-authors of papers, patents, etc, or to publish their own research results independently from their
supervisors.
The majority of the answers were marked „fully implemented“, i.e. 45 % of all answers. Next options „rather implemented“ were evaluated by
27 %, „moderate“ by 11 %, „rather missing“ by 5 %, „completely missing“ by 2 % and „unable to say“ by 10 %.
Table 35 Figure 35
1 - fully implemented 156
2 - substantially implemented 92
3 – partially implemented 39
4 – insufficiently implemented 18
5 - completely missing 6
6 - unable to say 35
∑ 346
33. Teaching (table 36, figure 36)
Teaching is an essential means for the structuring and dissemination of knowledge and should therefore be considered a valuable option within
the researcher’s career paths. However, teaching responsibilities should not be excessive and should not prevent researchers, particularly at the
beginning of their careers, from carrying out their research activities. Employers and/or funders should ensure that teaching duties are adequately
remunerated and taken into account in the evaluation/appraisal systems, and that time devoted by senior members of staff to the training of
early stage researchers should be counted as part of their teaching commitment. Suitable training should be provided for teaching and coaching
activities as part of the professional development of researchers.
The majority of the answers were marked „fully implemented“, i.e. 36 % of all answers. The option „rather implemented“ was evaluated by
28 %, „moderate“ by 15 %, „rather missing“ by 8 %, „completely missing“ by 3 % and „unable to say“ by 10 %.
Table 36 Figure 36
1 - fully implemented 124
2 - substantially implemented 96
3 – partially implemented 53
4 – insufficiently implemented 26
5 - completely missing 11
6 - unable to say 36
∑ 346
34. Complains/appeals (table 37, figure 37)
Employers and/or funders of researchers should establish, in compliance with national rules and regulations, appropriate procedures, possibly in
the form of an impartial (ombudsman-type) person to deal with complaints/appeals of researchers, including those concerning conflicts between
supervisor(s) and early-stage researchers. Such procedures should provide all research staff with confidential and informal assistance in resolving
work-related conflicts, disputes and grievances, with the aim of promoting fair and equitable treatment within the institution and improving the
overall quality of the working environment.
The majority of the answers were marked „unable to say“, i.e. 24 % of all answers. Next options „fully implemented“ were evaluated by 22 %,
„rather implemented“ by 21 %, moderate“ by 18 %, „rather missing“ by 9 % and „completely missing“ by 6 %.
Table 37 Figure 37
1 - fully implemented 75
2 - substantially implemented 74
3 – partially implemented 62
4 – insufficiently implemented 30
5 - completely missing 21
6 - unable to say 84
∑ 346
35. Participation in decision-making bodies (table 38, figure 38)
Employers and/or funders of researchers should recognise it as wholly legitimate, and indeed desirable, that researchers be represented in the
relevant information, consultation and decision-making bodies of the institutions for which they work, so as to protect and promote their individual
and collective interests as professionals and to actively contribute to the workings of the institution.
The majority of the answers were marked „fully implemented“, i.e. 33 % of all answers. The option „rather implemented“ was evaluated by
31 %, „moderate“ by 13 %, „rather missing“ by 5 %, „completely missing“ by 2 % and „unable to say“ by 16 %.
Table 38 Figure 38
1 - fully implemented 113
2 - substantially implemented 106
3 – partially implemented 45
4 – insufficiently implemented 19
5 - completely missing 9
6 - unable to say 54
∑ 346
36. Relation with supervisors (table 39, figure 39)
Researchers in their training phase should establish a structured and regular relationship with their supervisor(s) and faculty/departmental
representative(s) so as to take full advantage of their relationship with them. This includes keeping records of all work progress and research
findings, obtaining feedback by means of reports and seminars, applying such feedback and working in accordance with agreed schedules,
milestones, deliverables and/or research outputs.
The majority of the answers were marked „fully implemented“, i.e. 43 % of all answers. The option „rather implemented“ was evaluated by
29 %, „moderate“ by 15 %, „rather missing“ by 6 %, „completely missing“ by 1 % and „unable to say“ by 6 %.
Table 39 Figure 39
1 - fully implemented 149
2 - substantially implemented 102
3 – partially implemented 53
4 – insufficiently implemented 19
5 - completely missing 2
6 - unable to say 21
∑ 346
37. Supervision and managerial duties (table 40, figure 40)
Senior researchers should devote particular attention to their multi-faceted role as supervisors, mentors, career advisors, leaders, project
coordinators, managers or science communicators. They should perform these tasks to the highest professional standards. With regard to their
role as supervisors or mentors of researchers, senior researchers should build up a constructive and positive relationship with the early-stage
researchers,in order to set the conditions for efficient transfer of knowledge and for the further successful development of the researcher’s
careers.
The majority of the answers were marked „fully implemented“, i.e. 36 % of all answers. Next options „rather implemented“ were evaluated by
34 %, „moderate“ by 15 %, „rather missing“ by 4 %, „completely missing“ by 1 % and „unable to say“ by 10 %.
Table 40 Figure 40
1 - fully implemented 123
2 - substantially implemented 119
3 – partially implemented 53
4 – insufficiently implemented 14
5 - completely missing 3
6 - unable to say 34
∑ 346
38. Continuing Professional Development (table 41, figure 41)
Researchers at all career stages should seek to continually improve themselves by regularly updating and expanding their skills and
competencies.This may be achieved by a variety of means including, but not restricted to, formal training, workshops, conferences and e-learning.
The majority of the answers were marked „fully implemented“, i.e. 43 % of all answers. Next options „rather implemented“ were evaluated by
31 %, „moderate“ by 13 %, „rather missing“ by 5 %, „completely missing“ by 2 % and „unable to say“ by 6 %.
Table 41 Figure 41
1 - fully implemented 147
2 - substantially implemented 108
3 – partially implemented 46
4 – insufficiently implemented 18
5 - completely missing 7
6 - unable to say 20
∑ 346
39. Access to research training and continuous development (table 42, figure 42)
Employers and/or funders should ensure that all researchers at any stage of their career, regardless of their contractual situation, are given the
opportunity for professional development and for improving their employability through access to measures for the continuing development of
skills and competencies.Such measures should be regularly assessed for their accessibility, take-up and effectiveness in improving competencies,
skills and employability.
The majority of the answers were marked „fully implemented“, i.e. 36 % of all answers. The option „rather implemented“ was evaluated by
30 %, „moderate“ by 16 %, „rather missing“ by 6 %, „completely missing“ by 3 % and „unable to say“ by 9 %.
Table 42 Figure 42
1 - fully implemented 125
2 - substantially implemented 103
3 – partially implemented 54
4 – insufficiently implemented 22
5 - completely missing 11
6 - unable to say 31
∑ 346
40. Supervision (table 43, figure 43)
Employers and/or funders should ensure that a person is clearly identified to whom early-stage researchers can refer for the performance of their
professional duties, and should inform the researchers accordingly. Such arrangements should clearly define that the proposed supervisors are
sufficiently expert in supervising research, have the time, knowledge, experience, expertise and commitment to be able to offer the research
trainee appropriate support and provide for the necessary progress and review procedures, as well as the necessary feedback mechanisms.
The majority of the answers were marked „fully implemented“, i.e. 38 % of all answers. The option „rather implemented“ was evaluated by
30 %, „moderate“ by 13 %, „rather missing“ by 5 %, „completely missing“ by 3 % and „unable to say“ by 11 %.
Table 43 Figure 43
1 - fully implemented 132
2 - substantially implemented 105
3 – partially implemented 44
4 – insufficiently implemented 17
5 - completely missing 11
6 - unable to say 37
∑ 346
III. SUMMARY
1. The question with the most positive responses „fully implemented“ – 10. Non discrimination (74 % of all responses).
2. The question with the most positive responses „fully implemented“ and „rather implemented“ – 10. Non discrimination (89 % of all
responses).
3. The question with the most negative responses „completely missing“ – 26. Funding and salaries and
34. Complains/appeals (each 6 % of all responses).
4. The question with the most negative responses „completely missing“ and „rather missing“ – 26. Funding and salaries and 30. Access to career
advice (each 19 % of all responses).
5. The question with the most responses „moderate“ – 9. Public engagement, 26. Funding and salaries, 28. Career development (each 21 % of
all responses).
6. The question with the most responses „unable to say“ – 17. Variation in the chronological order of CVs (Code) (34 % of all responses).
7. The question with the lowest standard deviation – 1. Research freedom and 10. Non discrimination.
8. The question with the highest standard deviation – 34. Complains/appeals.